Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

It seems like the entire Bible was written like this (my opinion only). Paul had a god-concept -> the gospel writers came later and created a "human" character to make Paul's concept more palatable -> to make the character work, the writers backtracked through the OT prophecies and linked them to make this character a Messiah

Forgive me for sharing my journey with you but I'm trying to understand all this.

Help if you can - Flame if you must.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Part of the problem is how religion started, which was more along the lines of:

Evidence>Concept>Conclusion

While you stated that religion tends to go from concept to conclusion to evidence, I would refine that and say religion tends to do the exact reverse of what I stated above. Here's why.

Religion developed thousands of years ago out of the inability of humans to explain (usually bad) things about their environment.

Something would happen (Evidence: earthquake), a concept would be developed to explain the evidence (why else would an earthquake happen unless it was caused by some invisible being who is really powerful?), and finally a conclusion was drawn (there's a really powerful invisible guy up in the sky who will cause earthquakes to punish us if we don't worship him and/or do some really bad things).

Presto! Religion. The other problem is that several thousand years passed before science started making some really interesting findings. And it's only in the last 50 years or so that things have gotten really interesting, including the development of computer technology powerful enough to let us run models with huge amounts of data to make sense of how things work.

Religion has already arrived at conclusions on most, if not all topics. They'll say flat out that gay marriage or abortion is bad, develop a concept of why it is bad (usually something biblically-derived), then selectively point out evidence that shows why it's bad.

So that's where we are today, and that's why the battle is uphill at this point. Science has only been armed with good technology for developing concepts and gathering evidence for a small fraction of the time that religion has been around. So it'll probably take another couple of hundred years of scientific discovery to undo what thousands of years of religion has done.

This is what annoys me about theists who go on about how science hasn't figured out one thing or another yet. I'm sorry, is there a time-limit on scientific discovery? No. They're afraid that the more we look, the more we will be able to explain. And every time something new is explained, god gets a little less useful.

Well, the simplest answer is that only religion has it backwards, wouldn't you say?

I mean, science is responsible for everything we know about science, right? And religion has done nothing but contradict science at each new turn, only to backtrack when the evidence became overwhelming. Only then do the religious institutions update their revelation -- after science has proven them wrong.

To put it another way, since we know moving from evidence to conclusion works, it falls upon religion to provide a philosophical foundation for why doing it backwards also works, but only for religion, and only for whichever one happens to be true.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

I know, Hamby (or at least I think I do) - that's why I don't understand why many intelligent people who in everyday situations would be asking for evidence on which to base a conclusion give (their) religion a pass.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

that's why I don't understand why many intelligent people who in everyday situations would be asking for evidence on which to base a conclusion give (their) religion a pass.

Criminally short version -- it's more about culture and emotion than intelligence. Have you noticed that many open atheists have kind of a "fuck you" attitude about cultural convention and societal norms? Not that they necessarily shun them, but that atheists tend not to put social approval as high on their list as many people do.

Many people simply won't question the method because they don't want to face the possibility that religion is wrong. When your whole family, your whole peer group, and maybe even your livelihood is wrapped up in religion, questioning the philosophical foundation of it seems unthinkable.

Also, many people simply don't think religion is bad. They have a cognitive bias (probably due to the social bias I mentioned above) for seeing the good things religion does as more numerous and more valuable, and the bad things as less numerous and less important. Some things, they will assert, just aren't worth the time to think about. Religion's always been around, and it helps people. End of story.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

I mean, science is responsible for everything we know about science, right? And religion has done nothing but contradict science at each new turn, only to backtrack when the evidence became overwhelming. Only then do the religious institutions update their revelation -- after science has proven them wrong.

I don't understand religious institutions with ancient philosophical and theological writings who try to use their writings to understand the universe scientifically. It's like someone thousands of years in the future using edgar allen poe's poetry to understand wildlife. It's humorus.

Religion developed thousands of years ago out of the inability of humans to explain (usually bad) things about their environment.

Something would happen (Evidence: earthquake), a concept would be developed to explain the evidence (why else would an earthquake happen unless it was caused by some invisible being who is really powerful?), and finally a conclusion was drawn (there's a really powerful invisible guy up in the sky who will cause earthquakes to punish us if we don't worship him and/or do some really bad things).

That is the common story, but why? Why would anyone think there is a big invisible guy in the sky? Ancient people weren't dumb, they just didn't have access to the store of knowledge we have. They were plenty clever when it came to things they were familiar with.

At the risk of being a heretic (in a forum for heretics)... is it possible there is/was revelation from a real God, and some people rejected that and made their own gods?

Religion developed thousands of years ago out of the inability of humans to explain (usually bad) things about their environment.

Something would happen (Evidence: earthquake), a concept would be developed to explain the evidence (why else would an earthquake happen unless it was caused by some invisible being who is really powerful?), and finally a conclusion was drawn (there's a really powerful invisible guy up in the sky who will cause earthquakes to punish us if we don't worship him and/or do some really bad things).

That is the common story, but why? Why would anyone think there is a big invisible guy in the sky? Ancient people weren't dumb, they just didn't have access to the store of knowledge we have. They were plenty clever when it came to things they were familiar with. At the risk of being a heretic (in a forum for heretics)... is it possible there is/was revelation from a real God, and some people rejected that and made their own gods?

Is it also just as possible that the ancients (particularly their leaders) created beings that they claime to have obtained their right to rule from to hold further sway over their subjects?

If what you say is true, wouldn't there be some sort of evidence of this revelation around?

If an all powerful being revealed himself to everyone, wouldn't this revelation have been recorded by anyone?

Or are you saying that everyone saw this revelation but only the Hebrews accepted it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Religion developed thousands of years ago out of the inability of humans to explain (usually bad) things about their environment.

Something would happen (Evidence: earthquake), a concept would be developed to explain the evidence (why else would an earthquake happen unless it was caused by some invisible being who is really powerful?), and finally a conclusion was drawn (there's a really powerful invisible guy up in the sky who will cause earthquakes to punish us if we don't worship him and/or do some really bad things).

That is the common story, but why? Why would anyone think there is a big invisible guy in the sky? Ancient people weren't dumb, they just didn't have access to the store of knowledge we have. They were plenty clever when it came to things they were familiar with. At the risk of being a heretic (in a forum for heretics)... is it possible there is/was revelation from a real God, and some people rejected that and made their own gods?

Is it also just as possible that the ancients (particularly their leaders) created beings that they claime to have obtained their right to rule from to hold further sway over their subjects?

If what you say is true, wouldn't there be some sort of evidence of this revelation around?

If an all powerful being revealed himself to everyone, wouldn't this revelation have been recorded by anyone?

Or are you saying that everyone saw this revelation but only the Hebrews accepted it?

Messiah visitations are as universal in cultural diversity as angels, natural spirits and deities.

Is it also just as possible that the ancients (particularly their leaders) created beings that they claime to have obtained their right to rule from to hold further sway over their subjects?

But leaders are already ruling. Wouldn't wild claims detract from their right to rule, rather than add to it? Is skepticism a new invention?

jcgadfly wrote:

If what you say is true, wouldn't there be some sort of evidence of this revelation around?

My understanding is that the Bible is evidence of that revelation.

jcgadfly wrote:

If an all powerful being revealed himself to everyone, wouldn't this revelation have been recorded by anyone?

Or are you saying that everyone saw this revelation but only the Hebrews accepted it?

That is how I understand it. Of course, even the Hebrews weren't particularly interested or good at accepting it...

1. But it wouldn't be a wild speculation to people who thought up the gods to explain what they didn't understand. It would just be an extension - "the gods did this because you listened to me" if it was beneficial or "the gods are angry because you crossed me" if it was malevolent.

2/3. OK - a god revealed himself to all mankind in an amazing way but only one culture thought it was worth writing about? That's quite a stretch, isn't it? Almost as much of a stretch as the major Roman historians of the time who just disregarded the appearance of a miracle working Nazarene.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

2/3. OK - a god revealed himself to all mankind in an amazing way but only one culture thought it was worth writing about? That's quite a stretch, isn't it? Almost as much of a stretch as the major Roman historians of the time who just disregarded the appearance of a miracle working Nazarene.

If people were rational, yes. But, interestingly, people can be quite creative when it comes to rejecting God. The true God is quite overwhelming. Even after the Hebrews saw God come to Mt. Sinai, after a short time they turned to man-made idols (Exodus 32).

Knowing God means knowing you are not the most important thing in the world. That you are not in control of your life.

2/3. OK - a god revealed himself to all mankind in an amazing way but only one culture thought it was worth writing about? That's quite a stretch, isn't it? Almost as much of a stretch as the major Roman historians of the time who just disregarded the appearance of a miracle working Nazarene.

If people were rational, yes. But, interestingly, people can be quite creative when it comes to rejecting God. The true God is quite overwhelming. Even after the Hebrews saw God come to Mt. Sinai, after a short time they turned to man-made idols (Exodus 32).

Knowing God means knowing you are not the most important thing in the world. That you are not in control of your life.

I already know I'm not the most important thing on the planet. No God needed.

In order to accept God, you have to convince yourself that you are completely and utterly worthless without him. Why heap contempt on myself to please a sky-father?

I've seen churches hold courses to build one's self-esteem (even been to a few). while I applaud their efforts to rebuild what they tore down, it was ironic to see them go against their God in such a way.

It was only after I realized that there wasn't a God to suck up to that I began to recognize my own worth.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Well said Jcgadfly. I see no need for God either. I'm happy in my life. I've overcome a lot of shit in my life, all of it without any need for a God, in fact without even thinking about a lack of need for God, it was just never worth thinking about.

In order to accept God, you have to convince yourself that you are completely and utterly worthless without him. Why heap contempt on myself to please a sky-father?

I wouldn't put it quite that way. You can feel good about yourself without a notion of God. I, personally, had a lot of self-image problems before I came to a right understanding of God.

The question is, do you have a right image of yourself? Especially in respect to a God in control of the world?

I see.

Which one of the gods of the Bible were you following? Yahweh, Jesus or that christ thing Paul put together?

And as far as your first question goes - In your eyes, I don't have a right self-image because I don't have the image you believe I should have (according to whatever portion of the Bible that has the god you like).

As no one has proven that there is a God and that he is in control of the world, your second question is irrelevant.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Which one of the gods of the Bible were you following? Yahweh, Jesus or that christ thing Paul put together?

Systematic theology allows all these views to be reconciled. If you are actually interested, the best overall view is taken from the book of Romans.

jcgadfly wrote:

And as far as your first question goes - In your eyes, I don't have a right self-image because I don't have the image you believe I should have (according to whatever portion of the Bible that has the god you like).

As no one has proven that there is a God and that he is in control of the world, your second question is irrelevant.

It's not so much what I think, as what the Bible says (in a coherent way given from systematic theology - as held by orthodox Christianity [small 'o']).

Interestingly, the Bible does not attempt to prove God exists. It simply says "He is". That is because, as long as you hold yourself above and outside the Bible, your mind will never be satisfied.

Which one of the gods of the Bible were you following? Yahweh, Jesus or that christ thing Paul put together?

Systematic theology allows all these views to be reconciled. If you are actually interested, the best overall view is taken from the book of Romans.

jcgadfly wrote:

And as far as your first question goes - In your eyes, I don't have a right self-image because I don't have the image you believe I should have (according to whatever portion of the Bible that has the god you like).

As no one has proven that there is a God and that he is in control of the world, your second question is irrelevant.

It's not so much what I think, as what the Bible says (in a coherent way given from systematic theology - as held by orthodox Christianity [small 'o']).

Interestingly, the Bible does not attempt to prove God exists. It simply says "He is". That is because, as long as you hold yourself above and outside the Bible, your mind will never be satisfied.

Romans is the book that convinced me of my atheism . It is also the book that made me wonder if Paul was talking about the same guy that gospel writers were. Neither is anything like that Yahweh cat in the OT. Systematic theology is simply a bunch of people saying "It's the same God because we believe it is".

The Bible is not a book of proof - that much is true. It is a book of belief. I hold it in as much value as I do any other book.

Without evidence to back it up, isn't the Biblical statement "he is" just a naked assertion? You probably wouldn't accept that from a fellow human - why let God slide?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Romans is the book that convinced me of my atheism . It is also the book that made me wonder if Paul was talking about the same guy that gospel writers were. Neither is anything like that Yahweh cat in the OT.

I'd be interested in your reasoning, if you have that documented somewhere.

jcgadfly wrote:

Systematic theology is simply a bunch of people saying "It's the same God because we believe it is".

To some extent, yes. If God is true to His Word, then it must be all the same God. But there is a logical approach to working through all the passages and coming to a coherent stand. There are areas where people disagree, but the core values are widely held.

jcgadfly wrote:

The Bible is not a book of proof - that much is true. It is a book of belief. I hold it in as much value as I do any other book.

Without evidence to back it up, isn't the Biblical statement "he is" just a naked assertion? You probably wouldn't accept that from a fellow human - why let God slide?

Sure. I read a lot of science fiction. The author creates a world, and usually tweaks some particular law (physical or social). Then the story follows from those rules. Read the Bible the same way. Accept the assertions, and follow through the whole story.

When read this way, the Bible is better (more consistant and insightful) than any science fiction I've ever read. Then consider that the Bible was compiled over dozens of authors and hundreds (or thousands) of years.

Romans is the book that convinced me of my atheism . It is also the book that made me wonder if Paul was talking about the same guy that gospel writers were. Neither is anything like that Yahweh cat in the OT.

I'd be interested in your reasoning, if you have that documented somewhere.

jcgadfly wrote:

Systematic theology is simply a bunch of people saying "It's the same God because we believe it is".

To some extent, yes. If God is true to His Word, then it must be all the same God. But there is a logical approach to working through all the passages and coming to a coherent stand. There are areas where people disagree, but the core values are widely held.

jcgadfly wrote:

The Bible is not a book of proof - that much is true. It is a book of belief. I hold it in as much value as I do any other book.

Without evidence to back it up, isn't the Biblical statement "he is" just a naked assertion? You probably wouldn't accept that from a fellow human - why let God slide?

Sure. I read a lot of science fiction. The author creates a world, and usually tweaks some particular law (physical or social). Then the story follows from those rules. Read the Bible the same way. Accept the assertions, and follow through the whole story.

When read this way, the Bible is better (more consistant and insightful) than any science fiction I've ever read. Then consider that the Bible was compiled over dozens of authors and hundreds (or thousands) of years.

1. I think my problem with Romans started with trying and failing to reconcile these passages:

Matt 5:17-18 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

and

Romans 4:13-15 - " It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."

2. Systematic theology is governed by a very large IF.

3. I don't think your SF analogy helps you. When I finished "Dune" the first time, I thought "That was a pretty good read". I didn't believe that a planet named Arrakis really existed and that melange was a real substance.

The Bible requires you to keep suspending your disbelief after you've closed the book. Should the guidebook for one's eternity (which many believe the Bible is - maybe you do as well) be followed simply because of WSD? Doesn't the Bible say one should believe and not simply suspend disbelief?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

1. I think my problem with Romans started with trying and failing to reconcile these passages:

Matt 5:17-18

and

Romans 4:13-15

That is a good question. The point being, if Jesus did not do away with the law, and we are not saved by the law, why is there still the law? (Or why didn't Jesus do away with it, since He came for salvation)

The key is in Psalm 19:7 and Galatians 3:24. The law is perfect, for converting the soul. The law is a schoolmaster, bringing us to faith in Christ.

It is through examining ourselves in light of God's law, that we come to a proper understanding of ourselves compared to God. It helps us to see our place, and our need for salvation.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Systematic theology is governed by a very large IF.

3. I don't think your SF analogy helps you. When I finished "Dune" the first time, I thought "That was a pretty good read". I didn't believe that a planet named Arrakis really existed and that melange was a real substance.

That's true, but I don't think Herbert ever claims it was. And if you read the later books, you probably realized Herbert didn't really know how to keep a story going

jcgadfly wrote:

The Bible requires you to keep suspending your disbelief after you've closed the book. Should the guidebook for one's eternity (which many believe the Bible is - maybe you do as well) be followed simply because of WSD? Doesn't the Bible say one should believe and not simply suspend disbelief?

Eventually, you should come to a point where you realize it is true. Then you no longer need to suspend disbelief. It just makes sense.

1. I think my problem with Romans started with trying and failing to reconcile these passages:

Matt 5:17-18

and

Romans 4:13-15

nedbrek wrote:

That is a good question. The point being, if Jesus did not do away with the law, and we are not saved by the law, why is there still the law? (Or why didn't Jesus do away with it, since He came for salvation)

The key is in Psalm 19:7 and Galatians 3:24. The law is perfect, for converting the soul. The law is a schoolmaster, bringing us to faith in Christ.

It is through examining ourselves in light of God's law, that we come to a proper understanding of ourselves compared to God. It helps us to see our place, and our need for salvation.

Or Paul was contradicting himself and the rest of scripture. You forget that Paul says, "You are not under law but under grace". According to that, the Christian can pretty much do what he wishes because there's no law to transgress and no punishment for the transgression.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Systematic theology is governed by a very large IF.

3. I don't think your SF analogy helps you. When I finished "Dune" the first time, I thought "That was a pretty good read". I didn't believe that a planet named Arrakis really existed and that melange was a real substance.

That's true, but I don't think Herbert ever claims it was. And if you read the later books, you probably realized Herbert didn't really know how to keep a story going

jcgadfly wrote:

The Bible requires you to keep suspending your disbelief after you've closed the book. Should the guidebook for one's eternity (which many believe the Bible is - maybe you do as well) be followed simply because of WSD? Doesn't the Bible say one should believe and not simply suspend disbelief?

Eventually, you should come to a point where you realize it is true. Then you no longer need to suspend disbelief. It just makes sense.

Yes, I've read the rest and yes, it fell apart like a house of cards

So, this is where the faith comes in. You just believe despite the problems with the text, the gymnastics that systematic theology requires you to perform and the contrary evidence around you. That's an awful lot of work for a shot in the dark that you have the right God. Despite how much the Bible may make sense to you, that's still all it is.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Or Paul was contradicting himself and the rest of scripture. You forget that Paul says, "You are not under law but under grace"

Yes, before one is "born again", you are under the law. After, you are "under grace".

jcgadfly wrote:

So, this is where the faith comes in. You just believe despite the problems with the text, the gymnastics that systematic theology requires you to perform and the contrary evidence around you. That's an awful lot of work for a shot in the dark that you have the right God. Despite how much the Bible may make sense to you, that's still all it is.

The only thing I take on "faith" (trust) is that God is good to His Word.

Systematic theology has become quite developed over time. This is in response to continuing study, and, often, heresy. It is not a new way of looking at things, but developing understanding that remains consistant to Christian heritage.

What "contrary evidence" are you referring to?

I know the Bible has the right God, because Christianity is rational, and it says it is the only way. How many rational Muslims or Hindus are on this board?

Or Paul was contradicting himself and the rest of scripture. You forget that Paul says, "You are not under law but under grace"

Yes, before one is "born again", you are under the law. After, you are "under grace".

jcgadfly wrote:

So, this is where the faith comes in. You just believe despite the problems with the text, the gymnastics that systematic theology requires you to perform and the contrary evidence around you. That's an awful lot of work for a shot in the dark that you have the right God. Despite how much the Bible may make sense to you, that's still all it is.

The only thing I take on "faith" (trust) is that God is good to His Word.

Systematic theology has become quite developed over time. This is in response to continuing study, and, often, heresy. It is not a new way of looking at things, but developing understanding that remains consistant to Christian heritage.

What "contrary evidence" are you referring to?

I know the Bible has the right God, because Christianity is rational, and it says it is the only way. How many rational Muslims or Hindus are on this board?

You caught me in mid edit. So, does being under grace mean you can do what you will without God's reprisal? Remember, Paul is on record as saying there is no sin without the law and you agree that no Christian is under the law so Romans 6:1 doesn't make a lot of sense as a counter argument.

Contrary evidence

- no contemporary reference to Jesus (within a decade of his lifetime)

So, does being under grace mean you can do what you will without God's reprisal? Remember, Paul is on record as saying there is no sin without the law and you agree that no Christian is under the law so Romans 6:1 doesn't make a lot of sense as a counter argument.

Yes, I could do whatever I wanted without losing my salvation. I would certainly be subject to physical laws, and to society's laws. But I shouldn't do this. It is contrary to my understanding of what God has done for me. To do so would add to the suffering of Christ. It would also open me to discipline from God here on earth, loss of privilege in the afterlife, and probably discipline from my local church.

jcgadfly wrote:

Contrary evidence

- no contemporary reference to Jesus (within a decade of his lifetime)

- more evidence for evolution than God's creation

Need more?

What is your stand on martyrs of the early church? I ask because many people deny them...

Creationism (I assume YEC) vs. evolution (old earth) is an interesting topic. I know solid Christians of each view. It is not a foundational matter.

So, does being under grace mean you can do what you will without God's reprisal? Remember, Paul is on record as saying there is no sin without the law and you agree that no Christian is under the law so Romans 6:1 doesn't make a lot of sense as a counter argument.

Yes, I could do whatever I wanted without losing my salvation. I would certainly be subject to physical laws, and to society's laws. But I shouldn't do this. It is contrary to my understanding of what God has done for me. To do so would add to the suffering of Christ. It would also open me to discipline from God here on earth, loss of privilege in the afterlife, and probably discipline from my local church.

jcgadfly wrote:

Contrary evidence

- no contemporary reference to Jesus (within a decade of his lifetime)

- more evidence for evolution than God's creation

Need more?

What is your stand on martyrs of the early church? I ask because many people deny them...

Creationism (I assume YEC) vs. evolution (old earth) is an interesting topic. I know solid Christians of each view. It is not a foundational matter.

Are you asking "Do I think the martyrdoms happened?" or "Why do I think the martyrs were killed?"

I think there's a guy named Venktrajan who claims Hinduism - not sure of any Muslims. Not sure how often Venk comes on (if he still does).

I wasn't necessarily talking about breaking laws of man. I do think it's interesting that you don't think the 10 Commandments apply to you except in terms of what man's law will prosecute. You may as well take the Blasphemy challenge also - None of Jesus' words apply to you either.

Must be nice to be a Paulist. His Christ never really gave you anything on how to live. all you have to do is believe...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Are you asking "Do I think the martyrdoms happened?" or "Why do I think the martyrs were killed?"

Did they happen.

jcgadfly wrote:

I think there's a guy named Venktrajan who claims Hinduism - not sure of any Muslims. Not sure how often Venk comes on (if he still does).

Ok, thanks!

jcgadfly wrote:

I wasn't necessarily talking about breaking laws of man. I do think it's interesting that you don't think the 10 Commandments apply to you except in terms of what man's law will prosecute. You may as well take the Blasphemy challenge also - None of Jesus' words apply to you either.

Must be nice to be a Paulist. His Christ never really gave you anything on how to live. all you have to do is believe...

Most Christians believe it is impossible to commit the unforgiveable sin today. That reference was to people who saw Jesus' works and attributed them to Satan.

For me to sin "grieves the Holy Spirit". It is terribly uncomfortable. I don't want to sin. It is partly how I know that I am born again. The guilty pleasure is gone.

Reconciling Paul with Christ's words tells us that Jesus was exaggerating for emphasis when He says, "sin no more". Christians still sin, but they are supposed to be "stumbling" into sin rather than "diving" (continually sinning).

I don't work for salvation (that is a Catholic notion, although some Catholics are now telling me it doesn't quite work that way...). I do good works because I am saved. It sounds like a trivial difference, but there's reasoning behind it.